good - its soils my soul to speak to people like you. You would have been one of the citizens who helped the nazis by loading jews onto the truck -
for the good of the nation, of course. And then gleefully joined your family for sunday dinner in a very nice apartment formerly owned by a jew!

Then, after the war, you would have denied any involvement.

Tired of Control Freaks

I support the previous poster's decision to report this. But I'll also respond to it.

I can't believe you can seriously compare ethnic cleansing with a regulatory agency taking away a dangerous, unnecessary vice. As thing stand right
now, you also cannot walk outside your home, hop into a helicopter, and go throw dynamite at hydroelectric plants for fun. There are things that must
be prohibited specifically in law, because people are stupid and would go ahead and do those things otherwise.

The Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria has long imposed a strict ban on alcohol, cursing, smoking and other acts deemed haram, or sinful. But it
seems smoking may be the vice that's most offensive to ISIS, considering the severed head of an ISIS official that was reportedly found last month in
eastern Syria with a cigarette in its mouth. “This is not permissible, Sheikh,” a note attached to the nearby corpse read in Arabic, the Los
Angeles Times reported Thursday.
[/quote

Yeah, I don't live in the Islamic State. I don't know what your point is. Do you live in the Islamic State? Are you worried about living in the
Islamic State? Are you planning a vacation to the Islamic State? Casual beheading video fixation?

No - I absolutely respect property rights. If the owner of a property wishes not to have smokers rent his apartment, he is more than free to put that
in the lease.

We were talking about the state banning smoking in all privately owned apartment buildings. That is not the landlord speaking, that is the state.
You know the ones who don't pay the mortgage or the bills and has not stake in the building at all!

Just like the state banned smoking in all privately-owned restaurants and bars.

Now how come you support a landlords right to ban smoking but you don't support a landlords right to rent to smokers?

Re- read the thread - in particular - pay close attention to the fact that I have posted information with supporting links and at every turn, I have
been personally insulted. The evidence I posted was never discussed or debated. Every post was greeted with more attacks

What is the final solution to the smoking problem that Leonidas alluded to????? People have smoked for hundread and thousands of years. Prohibition
of tobacco has been going on and off for the last 400 years.

No - I absolutely respect property rights. If the owner of a property wishes not to have smokers rent his apartment, he is more than free to put that
in the lease.

We were talking about the state banning smoking in all privately owned apartment buildings. That is not the landlord speaking, that is the state.
You know the ones who don't pay the mortgage or the bills and has not stake in the building at all!

Just like the state banned smoking in all privately-owned restaurants and bars.

Now how come you support a landlords right to ban smoking but you don't support a landlords right to rent to smokers?

Tired of Control Freaks

Ooh, is state-sponsored banning of smoking in apartment buildings a thing? I'm all for that. I'm all for restricting
smokers, because smokers willingly infringe upon the rights of others unless they are restricted from doing so. Smoking is not a right; sanitary
living conditions are.

I asked you a direct question - please respond - I asked you specifically if you only support private property rights if it pleases you?

Tired of Control Freaks

I answered you directly, with a joke that meant the following: I support any rights that are for the common good.
Weight the two sides against each other: on the one hand, a smoker is not able to satisfy his craving while sitting in a small set of rooms situated
adjacent to hundreds of other families who may or may not smoke, and who can be adversely affected in a score of ways by the presence of a smoker. On
the other hand....see the bit in the last sentence about hundreds of other families. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the spoiled.

Then you don't believe in private property rights at all - Benny in 4A can choose to rent an apartment in the building of a landlord who doesn't
wish to rent to smokers. Read the paper. Non-smoking buildings abound.

I also posted an article about a 90 year old veteran and his wife who suffers from Alzeimers, who was evicted. Not because he smoked 'inside" his
apartment. He smoked OUTSIDE under a breezeway because it was raining. He had lived int he building for 20 years.

Well - all I can really say - is be careful of your own future. A government that is big enough to give you what you want, is also big enough to take
all you have.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.